“This is simple. Make your arguments from Original Intent and the founding era, and I will listen.”
In other words, you want me to PRETEND that Wong Kim Ark does not exist, so you can PRETEND to be smart. Uh, no.
If it is fantasy and pretence that you want, I have a suggestion! Go hire you a prostitute, and tell her that you will pay her for an hour of her time to help you pretend that you are a great legal scholar! You can even write out a script for her to follow! Here is how I would start the script!
“Oh, these mean old judges and courts just don’t have the guts to recognize that Eddy Vattel was the true source of what it means to be a natural-born citizen in the United States! Oh, Thank God that we have true Patriots like you and the other Birthers to set them straight! Of course, it is obvious that Obama and Harris can not be true Presidents, and I know how much you suffered to bring this message to America!” People laughing at you, and calling you bad names, and implying that turnips have more brains than you! But you have withstood the swings and arrows, I mean slings and arrows (did somebody actually shoot you in the arm with an arrow???) Anyway, you, you brave and noble man, you - you stood fast and did not give in no matter how many times the courts told you to go pound sand!”
You can adapt the script as necessary. An hour should cost you around $100.
Wong Kim Ark is not in conflict with my position. Wong is a "citizen", not a "natural born" citizen.
In other words, to argue intelligently, you stick with "first principles." (That's a physics term.)
You lawyers have a similar concept, but I can't think of how it's worded at the moment, but the closest thing I can think is "best evidence" or "primary evidence."
All your court rulings are second hand or third hand opinions based upon what people far removed from the era *thought* happened.
They do not deal with facts such as William Rawle deliberately blowing smoke into the discussion with his attempts to free the slaves by claiming their birth on the soil made them "citizens." (which it obviously didn't.)
You start with John Jay, Jefferson, Washington, and the convention delegates regarding what *THEY* understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
What people think 70 or 100 years later does not change what was the reality and intent in 1787.
And don't forget the convention was held in Philadelphia, and if there is any place in the nation that should have known what was their intent, it should be the Philadelphia legal community.